Examine the constitutional and legal framework governing the use of force by central armed police forces against protesters in India, with reference to recent controversies.

The right to peaceful assembly under Article 19(1)(b) is not absolute; the State may impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order under Article 19(3). Recent allegations of pellet-gun use by the Rapid Action Force against anti-paper-leak protesters in Delhi (20 July 2026) — which stalled the Rajya Sabha — expose gaps between this framework and its practice.

Constitutional basis and limits

• Article 19(1)(b) protects assembly "peaceably and without arms"; Articles 21 and 22 guard life and liberty of protesters against disproportionate force.
• Public order and police are State List entries; CAPFs like the CRPF/RAF are deployed by the Ministry of Home Affairs in aid of civil power, creating a dual-accountability grey zone [3].

Statutory framework

• BNSS, 2023 (Sections 148–151): an unlawful assembly may be dispersed by civil force, and only thereafter by armed forces, using "as little force and injury" as consistent with dispersal; Section 151 shields officers acting in good faith [1].
• No dedicated statute governs less-lethal weapons such as pellet guns; they operate through force manuals and SOPs, weakening legal certainty and liability.

Judicial standards

• Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary (2012): midnight eviction of sleeping protesters held excessive; restrictions must meet a test of imminent danger and proportionality [2].
• Anita Thakur v. State of J&K (2016): even where dispersal is lawful, excessive force is not, and the Court awarded compensation [4].

Institutional oversight

• NHRC advisories and the UN Basic Principles on Use of Force and Firearms (1990) require force to be a last resort, necessary and proportionate [5][6].
• Structural stressors — vacancies and poor working conditions in non-border-guarding CAPFs — dilute crowd-control training [3].

The framework is thus constitutionally sound but operationally thin: courts have supplied proportionality where statute supplies only discretion. Codifying an SOP for less-lethal weapons, mandatory body cameras, independent post-incident inquiry, and a ministerial statement in Parliament would align enforcement with Article 21 and restore the delicate balance between order and dissent that democracy rests upon.